Uh oh...Are you licensed to reload that ammo?

This is a discussion on Uh oh...Are you licensed to reload that ammo? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by HotGuns Yep. I remember being told that Obama had zero chance of being president too. Ditto, and I was one of those ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 27 of 27

Thread: Uh oh...Are you licensed to reload that ammo?

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Yep.

    I remember being told that Obama had zero chance of being president too.
    Ditto, and I was one of those who stated same sentiment.
    I wake up most every morning seriously wondering is it true...

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Senior Member Array boscobeans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    upstate new york
    Posts
    1,176
    Next step will be the registration of wheel weights !

    bosco

  4. #18
    Senior Member Array Shadowsbane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,051
    They are lead pollution afterall.
    Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

    www.Lonelymountainleather.com

  5. #19
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,840
    For the folks that are ready to put on their tin foil hats or believe that gun control is so far down Obama's list that it is not a real threat, I'll take the time to highlight some points so that you may actually READ what is being proposed.

    Article I
    Definitions

    For the purposes of this Convention, the following definitions shall apply:

    1. "Illicit manufacturing": the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials:

    a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or

    b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or

    c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacturing.
    Notice that manufacturing ammunition without a license from the government is considered " illicit".

    Rather than register the ammo, they are effectively seeking to register those that make it.

    That doesn't seem so hard to understand does it?

    With the yahoos we have in office now, does it seem to be a stretch of the imagination to think that new rules will be put into effect?

    Notice this,
    4. "Ammunition": the complete round or its components, including cartridge cases, primers, propellant powder, bullets, or projectiles that are used in any firearm.
    It doesn't get any more clear than that.

    The purpose of this Convention is:

    to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials;

    to promote and facilitate cooperation and exchange of information and experience among States Parties to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.
    So, you are an avid reloader, you don't sell your ammo, but you do "manufacture it." You don't have a license because as of now you aren't required to. If this is ratified, will you immediately register yourself to be legal?

    You had dang well better,because if you don't, there is this...

    1. States Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.

    So you haven't got around to registering or acquiring a permit...

    Article VII
    Confiscation or Forfeiture

    1. States Parties undertake to confiscate or forfeit firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials that have been illicitly manufactured or trafficked.

    2. States Parties shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials seized, confiscated, or forfeited as the result of illicit manufacturing or trafficking do not fall into the hands of private individuals or businesses through auction, sale, or other disposal.
    Almost sounds like all out war on guns and ammo doesn't it? Of course its to combat "illicit arms trade".

    We are told by the experts here that it will never be ratified, and I certainly hope that to be correct. However, there are a few things to be considered.

    This was actually pushed during the Clinton Administration and luckily, we still had some people that wouldn't put up with such silliness.As a result, we heard little about it. Even then it was stated by some of the Socialists in office that the "time wasn't right yet".

    Now we have an administration that only has one goal and that is to usher the United States into a global government where One Government pretty much dictates what all other governments will do,in all policies, in all areas of government.

    We have already seen an attempt to seize control of the Banks, to control of some of the largest manufacturers in the country, talk about controlling the power supply, we have seen the largest government distribution of wealth in the history of the world and we even hear of shutting down or monitoring any talk show that does not agree with the official party line. We are seeing our traditional allies shunned, (Israel) our declared enemies (Hamas) were given Billions in aid, our President has bowed to a King, courted those that are hostile to this country and repeatedly told us that all of this "Change" is for our own well being.

    The "gun control" topic is as always a hot one. One that some Democrats that haven't totally sold their souls to the Democratic Party don't wont to mess with because some of them still remember why they were beat during the Gore campaign.

    We are constantly told not to worry by people that are working day and night to eliminate rights that we as a people have enjoyed since the founding of this country.

    So, without addressing gun control and taking some political heat by those that wont touch it, we have an Administration that will do whatever it takes, whether it be a treaty, fabricating a crisis to use to curtail or even eliminate gun ownership or severely restrict it in some way shape or form.

    Notice that this is supposed to be a treaty, with other countries.

    Many things are done with treaties and all of us are affected. Some will argue that this only affects those that sell ammo or guns. One might notice that this treaty is so broadly worded that it includes even the average guy that reloads a few boxes of shells so that that he can go shoot IDPA every Thursday night after he gets home from work.

    Yet still as some have mentioned, it needs to be ratified by Congress.

    The same Congress that has OKed the largest spending spree ever seen, pushed by Obama.Already we are hearing lies and fabrications and propaganda pushed on us by those that would have us believe that this is something that we need to do, something that we all of a sudden cannot live without.

    This thing will not go away. It needs to be fought on every front, every second of every day. It's a start to making us no different than any other country where private citizens can no longer enjoy the right of self defense.

    History shows us that every Socialist or Communist dictator that has ever lived made it a priority to control the weapons of the people that they oppressed. Firearms owned by the masses are the only thing that they fear. The guns must go. They cannot be allowed. How it happens is irrelevant, as long as it happens.

    Think about it...if you are capable of doing so.

    Why the big push all of a sudden?
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  6. #20
    Senior Member Array CR2008's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    660
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Its get more bizarre with each passing day.

    He knows its an uphill fight here in the states, so he pursues other avenues that have the same effect without the political hooplah.

    And yet there are still those that insist it will "never happen here"...
    Because they only what to see what they choose to see but it's a lie... Obama's so called "belief" in the 2nd Amendment is perhaps one of his more obvious lies... sometimes I wander if him and his little minions in DC have looked on the surge in guns and ammo to see that his "change" is not wanted but greatly feared?
    http://www.bloombergfightbackfund.com/
    Sig P220R/Sig P239 (9mm)/ S&W 640/ Ruger Single Six Hunter (.22LR/Mag)/ CZ 452 Varmint .22LR/ Lee Enfield No4 MK2 sporterized dated 1959/ Mosin Nagant M90-30 dated 1942/

  7. #21
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    For the folks that are ready to put on their tin foil hats or believe that gun control is so far down Obama's list that it is not a real threat, I'll take the time to highlight some points so that you may actually READ what is being proposed.

    *quotes part of the treaty*

    That doesn't seem so hard to understand does it?

    With the yahoos we have in office now, does it seem to be a stretch of the imagination to think that new rules will be put into effect?
    The issue isn't whether or not the "yahoos" would approve of something like that if they could. The issue is that of all the methods for them to enact onerous gun laws, this one is by far the most difficult and least likely. Why in the world would Obama try to pass this treaty to get gun control in place when he can do the same thing and only need 51 votes (or 60 to dodge a filibuster) by passing a normal bill/law? He's not stupid, he can count.

    We are told by the experts here that it will never be ratified, and I certainly hope that to be correct. However, there are a few things to be considered.

    This was actually pushed during the Clinton Administration and luckily, we still had some people that wouldn't put up with such silliness.As a result, we heard little about it. Even then it was stated by some of the Socialists in office that the "time wasn't right yet".
    And if you actually pay attention to the makeup of Congress, you'd know that the Senate is more pro-gun now than it was during the Clinton administration. So a treaty that had no hope of passing during the Clinton years has even less of a chance now.

    Now we have an administration that only has one goal and that is to usher the United States into a global government where One Government pretty much dictates what all other governments will do,in all policies, in all areas of government.
    And we're off....

    Yet still as some have mentioned, it needs to be ratified by Congress.

    The same Congress that has OKed the largest spending spree ever seen, pushed by Obama.Already we are hearing lies and fabrications and propaganda pushed on us by those that would have us believe that this is something that we need to do, something that we all of a sudden cannot live without.
    No, not Congress, the Senate. The one that (assuming Franken wins) will have 59 votes in the Democratic caucus. No treaty can be enacted without their approval, and it must be by two thirds. 67 votes. Again, even if Obama somehow browbeat every single Democrat, he's still short by eight votes (I miscounted earlier). Also, again, the gun laws in this treaty are far more restrictive than the ones that a boatload of Democrats have already raised Hell about.

    This. Treaty. Will. Not. Be. Ratified.

    I also want to make something clear. I am not saying, "Calm down, there's no risk of bad gun law being passed." Far from it! I'm just trying to look rationally at all the possibilities. We have lots to legitimately fear.

    That nitwit Holder can make regulatory changes without congressional approval. Every time another lunatic goes cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, the AWB nonsense gets a touch louder. Empty suits like Dianne Sawyer and Rick Sanchez puke forth their idiocy on national TV with no meaningful opposition.

    I applaud and agree with the idea that we have to be vigilant, but we've already seen falling sky scenarios get cleared up (military brass reselling anyone?).

  8. #22
    Member Array samh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Damascus, Arkansas
    Posts
    159
    This sheds a new light on Obama's statement in Mexico when he told the President of Mexico he wasn't pushing for any new assault weapons ban in Congress, with this treaty he doesn't need too.
    Annual Member NRA 1972-88
    Life Member NRA 1988
    Endowment Member NRA 2013
    SAF Member 2013

  9. #23
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,840
    this. Treaty. Will. Not. Be. Ratified.
    I. Hope. You. Are. Correct.

    We shall see.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  10. #24
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by samh View Post
    This sheds a new light on Obama's statement in Mexico when he told the President of Mexico he wasn't pushing for any new assault weapons ban in Congress, with this treaty he doesn't need too.
    The treaty is many times more difficult to pass than normal legislation. This makes no sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    I. Hope. You. Are. Correct.

    We shall see.
    And if I'm not, I'll be here to eat a virtual plate of crow. More importantly, if this treaty ever gets past the "yeah right" stage, I'll be screaming bloody murder to my senators.

  11. #25
    Senior Member Array Pure Kustom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Mesa,Az
    Posts
    1,081
    I think it is funny how some people think. It is tin foil time either for or against. Divide and concour.

    All you have to do is ask yourself 4 questions.

    #1. Is this current administration anti gun............................yes

    #2. Did they say they wanted to tax ammo and implement reasonable gun laws.............................................. .............yes

    #3. Are they going to try everything that they can get away with to pass laws that will restrict your second amendment rights............................................ ..................yes

    #4. If nobody complained or watched their every move. Would they take your guns away.......................................YOU BET YOUR AS!!!!

  12. #26
    Senior Member Array sui-juris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    521
    Torgo may be on to something, treaties are much more difficult to get through and for the minority to delay or stop. But w/these guys in control now, I wouldn't put anything past them..



    Comrades, Comrades, please calm down.
    Your Glorious leaders only have your interests at heart. We would never sign such a treaty...yet..
    Besides, why sign a treaty when we could ram legislation through much easier.
    " Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master." George Washington

  13. #27
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by sui-juris View Post
    Torgo may be on to something, treaties are much more difficult to get through and for the minority to delay or stop. But w/these guys in control now, I wouldn't put anything past them..
    I want to be clear that an *attempt* to get it through is certainly possible. But given the current makeup of the Senate, it would be doomed to fail, and Obama has shown a fairly strong distaste for pushing on issues where he's got to put up a fight. That's been both a good thing (guns) and a bad thing (a crapload of other issues that aren't on topic).

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Licensed again
    By Wes Kenney in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 25th, 2009, 09:29 PM
  2. SHTF Ammo Reloading For People Who Don't Reload.
    By QKShooter in forum Reloading
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: April 14th, 2009, 10:35 AM
  3. Is it worthwhile to get licensed in as many states as you can?
    By MikeGoob in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: April 23rd, 2008, 07:45 AM
  4. Reload ammo in Court
    By pgrass101 in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: March 30th, 2007, 01:19 AM

Search tags for this page

licensed ammo

Click on a term to search for related topics.